Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday October 12, 2012 @12:55PM
from the all-about-the-benjamins-and-the-julians dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that members of computer hacker collective Anonymous have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange. A statement linked from the Anonymous Twitter account, AnonymousIRC, described WikiLeaks as 'the one man Julian Assange show,' and complained that the website implemented a paywall seeking donations from users who wanted access to millions of leaked documents. 'The idea behind WikiLeaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know,' said the statement on behalf of Anonymous. The dispute could starve WikiLeaks of potentially newsworthy leaks in the future, as some of Wikileaks' recent disclosures – including the Stratfor emails – are alleged to have come from Anonymous."

That article was published on 11 october 5:44 PM. The paywall went right back up and here's what Anonymous posted on their website just a few hours later [anonpaste.me]. I'm especially interested in seeing what's in their dossier on Wikileaks. It's about time WikiLeaksLeaks turned from a joke into reality;)

Did they say anywhere that the group had a single unified voice? All they said is that some people are changing their minds about Wikilinks, and have broadcast the message to their Twitter followers. Maybe that is why the story here is titled with "losing support" instead of "lost support." A single voice would be the latter, a mass of people lacking hierarchy can still have trends in their actions and support though.

Fuck me sideways. The one time I have JavaScript enabled I mis-moderate. I understand the reasoning behind not being able to edit a comment, but re-moderating within a minute or two, when moderation takes place instantly with no confirmation should be the minimum allowed.

The computer hacker collective Anonymous has distanced itself from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange.

Yeah, quoting one twitter account doesn't really show much more than a segment of "Anonymous"'s opinion. They [twitter.com] have [twitter.com] quite [twitter.com] a [twitter.com] few [twitter.com]. Tweet from the last one: "Anonymous not unanimous. We don't have to agree w/ each other all the time. We choose to take part in actions we support, or not. #Wikileaks".

I read an article with an interview with an Anonymous spokesman on this issue who took the time to drive home the fact this statement doesn't speak for all members of Anonymous because Anonymous does not have a single voice or opinion on anything; however, he stated that this has become the predominant view in the organization as of late and there's been a lot of anger over it, and that this has been brewing for a while as Wikileaks increasingly turns away from leaks and more toward lionizing and defending

The converse to that is that anyone can "speak for" Anonymous, insofar as they represent a sub-group with a certain opinion. And if the majority of people who identify themselves as "Anonymous" or at least the majority of the vocally active individuals who do so espouse a certain belief, then "Anonymous" can be said to be saying that. Of course, not all the individuals might say or think that, but it doesn't matter if the de facto leaders all do.

Anonymous may not have a strict party line or hierarchy, but its spokespeople essentially define what it is because that is how the casuals know if they should adhere to the current operation and how to act in unison. In that way, they do not cause actions to happen by top-down direction, as in a hierarchy, but they still direct action by making the requirements known to a likely audience, of which, a loose group may form to execute that idea.

So, while the greater number of people who are involved are completely anonymous and have differing viewpoints, there's a lot fewer people out there doing the actual planning, communicating, and running support infrastructures. Those people do have views, and those people have had a much more consistent message than you might expect for a group that should be made up of anyone who wants to call themselves Anonymous.

let me guess mr. AC, you think you're part of this _organization_ which isn't an organization. if I did something anonymously, sure, anonymousirc or some other fucker could take credit and probably would, provided it fit into their view of what should be done - if not then they'd condemn as not being the work of "anonymous". that's what fucked about running a pr service about anonymous: taking judgement and trying to hijack the anonymous word for meaning their group, their clique.

Any guesses as to whether most individuals who participate/do/makeup/whatever anonymous individually support wikileaks though? It's all well and good that anonymous is mysterious and unknowable, but I'm more interested in whether or not Assange's issues are tiring the crowd or if this is some sort of smear campaign. Because I suspect it's the latter: that this reporter was lead to or ordered to say "Even his supporters are getting sick of him, don't pay attention to the stuff they're about to leak, just r

my good man you don't need a dictator to reach consensus before you speak as a whole, but ill grant you anyone can pose as anyone, they do have official channels i presume posers would be hunted down for posting there. Consensus... as with lulzsec and dabu , they kinda distanced themselves

Get over the guy... he's a self-aggregandizing narcisist and self-described "chauvinist" who lives his life like he's a character in a fiction book, complete with "retconning" his past. It's a real pity that he ended up the central figure in such an important cause as transparency instead of someone more stable.

--Yes, and it makes TERRIFIC bloody sense to have a method of TRACKING those Concerned Citizens(TM) who want to have a look at the leaked documents. Jazus. Implement a paywall on a site that is supposedly concerned with the public interest?? WTF were they thinking!?

So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.

So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.

Makes sense to me.

You forgot that, because this group is not a group, they can't be wrong (since that requires groupiness), unless they're right, in which case they're not wrong, and they're not a group which is a group which we can all get behind while not being behind them, because that might be illegal, if it were a group, which it is not, which makes them right, which they are, because they're not.

It's so simple; I just don't see how these plebs keep getting this so wrong. Maybe it's because they're a group.

So basically, they're having a lover's spat between thieves, and this is news why? Wikileaks sunk itself because it put all it's eggs in a basket named Julian. When you're fighting the good fight against a government, exposing and embarassing them, they're going to target your leaders. The first duty of any political movement is to ensure continuity; Because your leaders will be taken out of the game. Wikileaks was too centralized, and so all it took was removing this one guy and making three phone calls (t

Ugh. "Its", not "It's"... This is what I get for not having my morning mountain dew before logging in. *flogs self* Oh, grammar gods, forgive this young and foolish geek! *flogs self* I have seen the error of my ways! *flogs*...

Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"

Wikileaks got hammered by the government pressuring any businesses providing infrastructure. If your service providers and your financiers are willing to cave in, there's not much you can do *regardless*. Wikileaks isn't some guy in a basement FTPing PDFs.

Yes, that was a veiled reference to the diplomatic cable leaks -- Bad Plan, Darlings. We don't need to know that our diplomats are sexually promiscuous, or that they're having marital problems, etc. Those are private matters -- diplomat or not, we need to respect the privacy of others unless there's a compelling public interest reason for disclosure.

If that's all you learned from the Diplomatic Cables, you should put down the gossip magazines and start reading serious news.

Things the diplomatic cables revealed:1. The USA was bombing Yemen and lied to the American people about it. The Yemeni government provided cover for the USA's involvement.2. Confirmation that the Chinese government directed the hacking of Google's servers in China3. Our ally Kuwait refuses to take back the Kuwaitis we've picked up in Afghanistan and have been holding in Guantanamo4. Funding for al-Qaeda, is still flowing from various rich individual in Saudi Arabia (our ally)5. Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, is on the CIA payroll and a major drug dealer.6. Indian politicans were giving and receiving bribes in order to vote for a nuclear deal with the USA7. The US Government was secretly lobbying New Zealand and Canada to institute shitty copyright laws8. The State Dept pushed The Washington Post into watering down a story about security contractors bribing Afghans with drugs and teen partyboys9. The USA used the acceptance of Guantanamo detainees as bargaining chips10. US troops rounded up and shot 11 people, then called in a missile strike to cover their murders. [wikipedia.org]

Feel free to go point by point and argue why there isn't a "compelling public interest reason for disclosure"From what we've seen, a lot of what gets classified is either embarrassing, illegal, or a war crime.Not anything whose disclosure would be a threat to national security, unless you consider justice a threat.

There might have been information in those cables that the public had a right to know, but a lot of it they didn't, and Wikileaks should have shown some discretion in what to publish and what not to. How would you like it if private communications with friends and family were leaked to the public because you happened to work for a company that engaged in unethical behavior that due to the leaks became public? Sure, the public had a right to know about that, but not your stuff too. And that's what the diplom

Blah blah blah. You're rehearsing all these old arguments about journalistic responsibility. Here's the problem: the leaks are so big that it's impossible to know what's in them. No single organization has the resources to pick through them and find everything of interest. Once it has been ascertained that they contain some information which it is in the public interest to release, the choice is between releasing everything and releasing practically nothing. Only releasing relevant documents is simply not practical.

The analogy with personal communications is a false one. The diplomatic cables were produced by government officials while they were in work getting paid to write them. They are not personal communications.

Here's the problem: the leaks are so big that it's impossible to know what's in them.

That's a new definition of "Impossible" of which I was previously unaware. See, the word I would use is "inconvenient." Well, taking responsibility is inconvenient, but that's not an excuse for being irresponsible. That's the kind of thinking teenagers and children use, not mature adults who come into possession of information that could cost others their lives if handled poorly.

The analogy with personal communications is a false one.

Does the same argument apply to the e-mails you send your friends from work? Unless you're doing some kind of mental acrobatics to

There was a reasonable effort. For instance, the names of informants were all redacted to prevent harm to them.

Claiming that what wikileaks did was a bad thing because they went too far, well, if the government hadn't been classifying all of this stuff wikileaks wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Don't blame Wikileaks because the government is mixing all of this 'personal' information in with stuff that should be released to the people. That is like terrorists using human shields to avoid snipers.

Most of those were public secrets at best. Remember, this was all information accessible with a very low level of security clearance.

Release massive dumps of private data publicly with the hope that a small portion of that data is in the public interest is all sorts of immoral and goes against the principle of responsible disclosure.

You could use the justification for the diplomatic cables leak to justify hacking into every Slashdot user's email accounts. There'll probably be a few users who've been d

Release massive dumps of private data publicly with the hope that a small portion of that data is in the public interest is all sorts of immoral and goes against the principle of responsible disclosure.

Withholding massive dumps of public data privately with the hope that a small portion of that data is not in the public interest is all sorts of immoral and goes against the principle of responsible disclosure.

You are aware of the stance on hostage takers, right? No bargaining. Well, the government has purposefully mixed in 'hostages' with this data which should be released to the public. Are you seriously saying that we should play to their game?

To anyone who hasn't realized Assange's ego, they clearly haven't read anything he's ever written or said;) His old blog at IQ.org is one of the biggest collections of naval gazing I've ever seen in one place, and that was back in 2006, before his self-aggregandizing hit new levels. Complete with such great hits as his "women's brains can't do math" and "I am a god to women" posts.

Oh, and on that subject, just for any women who happen to meet him: his standard tactic (which women have over and over menti

So danged scummy. People went to jail to give them that information. And they didn't go to jail so Assange could raise money to run from rape charges.

So damned ironic given that Assange was just a couple weeks ago saying that a vendor in Tunisia didn't set himself on fire so Obama could win an election after Obama mentioned the Arab spring in a speech.

To my knowledge Assange is just the face of the company, people provide wikileaks with the info and Assange is the messenger.

It is important to realize that the messenger is the one getting the flogging, not those who have committed crimes or broken the law. Just the messenger. It's specifically a message from the government "If you mess with us and reveal our secrets we will lock you away like Bradley Manning!".

Citizens pay taxes, which fund governments which are be accountable to the public who pay the taxes, that's how it *should* work. What Assange is going through shows very clearly that when we attempt to hold those in power accountable for their actions, actions which they have kept(hidden) from the public, they will go after you tooth and nail. That's the country we live in folks, keep paying taxes and keep your mouth shut, or face the wrath of the government.

Cryptrome do nothing, never have, never will. So, bullshit to yourself. Whether you like Assange or not, he has a face, he gets media coverage, which leads to media exposure of leaked information. At least until the CIA told Sweden to do a number on him.

Just because someone's paid by taxes, that should not mean they forsake any rights to privacy nor should it be a case that a Government should never have secrets.

Should military tactics be made public? Should the secrets about how to make advanced weaponry be public? Should I be able to to hear or read every phone call and email from Obama? Even if it's to his family about family matters?

Should a $16,000 a year government paid cleaner have the same lack of privacy? Should I be able to see who has rece

All 9/11 conspiracy theorists can fuck off and die. Seriously, you're not clever, you're not fighting for truth. You're assholes who don't realize they make as much sense as birthers or moon landing hoax nuts.

Sorry you're right. Governments never lie. Thus, our government did not lie about 911, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And you're definitely not engaging in the classic disinformation tactic of associating non-believers with crazies.

"not fighting for truth?" What is fighting for truth then? What you're doing?

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and den

Well my internet friend Its pretty simple and having been only a few blocks away when it happenand having watched 4 of the buildings collapse with my own eyes, I can explain.

World Trade I and II were very LARGE buildings, in fact they were some of the largest buildings in the World for a long time and they we not made of paper.Two large airliners hit both (which I can confirm from watching it), causing them to catch on fire, melt and collapse causing massive damage to the buildings around them.

Good points... I was pondering on the quick finding of one of the alleged terrorists passports after hearing of it from finnish news - way before there were any theories. So quick, too quick, too easy, too unbelievable it surviving intact from the explosion and then in all the chaos getting discovered and focused on so quickly - also asked myself how/why exactly they were so certain that the passport was of one terrorist, ie...

But that didn't prove anything, I know that. It's just one problem in the equatio

Not sure why people would think telling a *firefighting team not a demolitions team* to "pull it" would mean that the *firefighting team* should somehow collapse the building. The offered explanation is rather more logical, isn't it?

And based on the documentation from the site, the building was on shaky foundation to start with. Which means a number of factors could have caused it to collapse.

But alright. It was a conspiracy, I'm sure you can argue until I walk away in frustration, f

The comments to my post seem to support failure to see the puzzle pieces.

Actually this is all very interesting the motive of hiding financial investigation and spending which are bank related. Building 7 contained SEC investigation into various financial issues including http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stockmarket.html [pbs.org] and the day before on 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld publicly stated the pentagon cannot account for 2.3 trillion of its spending of taxpayer dollars. Guess what department of the pentagon

There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.

Yes, JA is being railroaded, but it is beyond tiring of WL coyly dangling carrots to stay relevant by picking and choosing small drips what to release. Anonymous would probably dump everything at once and mirror it across the world a hundred times over.

Can't remember the particulars, but there was a former WL principal that took a goodly chunk about embarassing banking dirt and deleted it (or sold it back, or?). This info is too valuable to keep in a few precocious hands that think they alone can change

I suspect that might be true, but then the "leaks" movement is much more and greater than Assange:http://globaleaks.org/ [globaleaks.org]
Recommended reading: Andy Greenberg's This Machine Kills Secrets

Just as file sharing evolved to make it more and more difficult to track people, so will this movement evolve. Another organization will arise to take the place of WikiLeaks, and they will learn from WikiLeaks' mistakes. They won't make it about one person, and if their leadership (if they have one) is discovered and exposed, the reins will be passed to protect the cause.

The Guardian (as well as other MSM outlets) opposed publishing information regarding Israel, leading to Assange being called an agent of Israel. Assange managed to offend the ego of a Guardian 'journalist' so the journalist has it in for Assange. A Guardian 'journalist' leaked the key used to encrypt the so-called 'insurance' file. The Guardian as MSM is threatened by a successful Wikileaks model.

The Guardian is not exactly an unbiased news source for matters related to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

The Guardian was one of the newspapers given access to the unredacted cables that sparked global controversy. Initially, they honored their promise to keep the source material secret - after all, it contained names of sources whose lives might depend upon anonymity.

The Guardian's "Investigative Editor" David Leigh decided it would be OK to publish a book about Assange and Wikileaks, which incredibly contained the password for the unredacted cables file already circulating on torrent sites.

How many lives David Leigh affected will never be known - but obviously after this, the relationship between Wikileaks and The Guardian soured dramatically.

Sorry, the blame ultimately goes on Assange's piss poor security procedures. He was put in charge of the data, the data (ironically) got leaked

His "brilliant" idea of making the encrypted files public (purely as a selfish insurance policy) meant that a 7 month old password getting made public fucked everything over and there was nothing he could do. He presumably sent passwords to journalists across the world, it was only a matter of time before a working password became known.

No, it's Assange's fault that what should've been an old expired password was capable of completely compromising the data.

It was a piss poor security policy for data that was so sensitive.

When a website is hacked and plaintext passwords for all their users get leaked, few here would say "I don't blame the website, it's all on the hackers!". People would be angry that the website has poor security measures that allowed it to be compromised and they'd be even angrier that the data required minimal effo

That's essentially what he did: sent out encrypted files, and gave the password to just a few people who he trusted. A website or single system is far too easily compromised, anything other than what he did is dependant on a central server and is far too easily taken down by something with the resources of the US government. His problem wasn't with his technical skills or choice of encryption technique or password, but rather with his people skills and his choice of people to trust with the password. One of